﻿<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <title></title>
    <link href="fmstlyle.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
</head>
<body>
<div class="Section1">
<h2>John versus The Synoptics.</h2>
<h2>I am presently rewriting this document. Please check back later for a Updated Version.</h2>
<div class="heading3">Author:<a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/111875209479298778013/about" rel="author" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;">  Trevor Forrester BMin AdvDipTh.</a></div>
<p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 36pt;">Synopsis.</span> The
topic of the Similarities and Differences between John and the Synoptic Gospels
is one over which much ink has been spent. Far be it from this author to try
and rewrite the history of this debate or bring some new insight that has been
previously undiscovered. However it will be attempted to show that the
arguments of those who hold to literary dependency have been justifiable
overcome, and that with having been able to establish that John wrote without any
literary dependence on the Synoptics, the doorway is open to look at the Fourth
Gospel as sharing an Interlocking Tradition.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the discussion of the relationship between the Gospel of John and the
other synoptic gospels(Matthew, Mark and Luke), it is almost impossible to be dogmatic when talking
about which theory best explains the similarities and differences. Rather there
are three main views to which we can turn. It is not the first view on which we
will concentrate but the second, because it enables the first view to be
unlocked and<span>&nbsp; </span>the debate can turn to a
new and innovative way of looking at this issue (An Interlocking Tradition).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Firstly there is the view that John had one or more of the
Synoptics before him and deliberately set out to write a different type of
Gospel<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[1]</span>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Secondly John was not dependent on of any of the Synoptics
but wrote independently out of an overlapping oral tradition avoiding the
repeating of that tradition. Instead John confirmed, completed, clarified and
rectified it<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[2]</span>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thirdly John had some familiarity with at least one of the
Synoptics but wrote without reference to any of them<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[3]</span>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">By and large it is the first view that has held sway for
the greater part of the first half of the twentieth century<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"><span><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[4]</span>. This was the view held by such notable
scholars as C.K. Barrett and B.W Bacon<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[5]</span> who held that John used freely from <span class="SpellE">Marcan</span> material<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[6]</span>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is the second view however to which we turn, because to
show that the John wrote independent of the Synoptics is to free the gospel and
allow a greater interpretation of the facts.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The words of M.E. <span class="SpellE">Glasswell</span> or
echoed in this debate  the fact that the author of the Fourth Gospel had
before him when he wrote, tradition which was in many places parallel to that
of the Synoptics is probably universally accepted<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[7]</span>. At issue he claims is whether he knew
that tradition in written form.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Writing on behalf of those who see John writing
independently there are such authors as, Gardiner-Smith, John A. T. Robinson, <span class="SpellE">Goodenough</span>, Dodd, Raymond E. Brown and <span class="SpellE">Schnackenburg</span><a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[8]</span>. By far the greatest impetus for this
view came from P. Gardiner-Smith<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[9]</span> who carried out a thorough examination of
the case for dependence and concluded that it could not be substantiated<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[10]</span>. Gardiner-Smith bought to attention the
existence of a continuing oral tradition which was in use at the time of the
writing of the Synoptics<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[11]</span>. Also he raised the issue of the
concentration of the critics on the similarities between John and the Synoptics
and not on the differences between them. This made the issue of dependence less
compelling<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[12]</span>. C.H Dodd took up this question of
whether we can in any way discover an underlying tradition in the fourth gospel<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[13]</span> which is independent from any other
traditions known to us. He goes onto claim that it has almost been a dogma of
criticism that John depends on the Synoptics. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is no reason to think that the author of John&#39;s
Gospel had to follow any previous written form, nor need he be dependent on the
previous existence of one, for the idea of writing such a work<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[14]</span>. John A.T. Robinson believes that Dodds
position that John is not literary dependant on the Synoptics has been fully
vindicated<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[15]</span>. He claims that the literary dependence
of John on the Synoptics rests on the presupposition that, (1) the synoptic
gospels or at least one of them already existed; (2) John had a prior knowledge
of them; (3) John used them; and (4) he depended upon them, at least in part
for his material<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[16]</span>.<span>&nbsp; </span>The
early church according to Dodd was not a community that read widely and as such
many misconceptions have been perpetrated because of this<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[17]</span>. Rather it carried out its affairs with
the means of voice, worship and missionary preaching and it was out of these
forms of communication that the traditions of liturgy, <span class="SpellE">didache</span>
and <span class="SpellE">kerygma</span> were built up. Similarity in form he
claims can be explained in a different manner. The explanation is that of a
common tradition under which the gospel writing began<a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[18]</span>. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">D.A. Carson highlights this and states, if the work of
Dodd and others is right, and John preserves independent tradition, then the
places where John and Mark seem very close (e.g. in the ordering of events in
John 6/and Mark 6) could be taken as evidence not of direct literary dependence but
of common dependence on oral tradition, and ultimately on the order of events
themselves<a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[19]</span>. Dodd comes to the conclusion that there
is behind the fourth gospel an ancient tradition that is independent from the
gospels<a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[20]</span>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Arguing against dependence which according to him is based
on the striking similarities between John and the Synoptics in literary style
and sequence, Dodd raises the issues of chronology and authorship.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Firstly, on the issue of chronology, he points out that
John is a narrative neatly arranged in order according to the Jewish calendar,
which includes about three years<a href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[21]</span>. Marks account however only appears to
cover one year and as such has been used by many critics to refute John.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Secondly there is the question of authorship<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[22]</span> and as Dodd shows there has been long
debate over this issue which has been inconclusive<a href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[23]</span>.<span>&nbsp;
</span>For if an early date for Johns death is taken as with C.K. Barrett<a href="#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[24]</span>, then John could not have lived long
enough to write the fourth gospel<a href="#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[25]</span>. Barrett does not explicitly deny that
John could have lived to an old age but rather he states Even if the martyrdom
tradition is rejected, difficulties remain in the alternative accounts of John<a href="#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[26]</span>. There is no evidence he claims, for
Johns residence in <st1:city><st1:place>Ephesus</st1:place></st1:city> to be
found in any orthodox Christian writings found earlier that <span class="SpellE">Irenaeus</span>.
If John had resided there as the tradition claims why is there no trace of this
mentioned in literature that has survived from the first half of the second century.
Dodd views this with some disdain and puts forward the hypothesis that if John
had died the early martyr death as propounded by Barrett then the Sons of <span class="SpellE">Zebedee</span> must have been dead when the prediction of Mark
10:39 was put forth<a href="#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[27]</span>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">E. Kenneth Lee states that when we compare the Fourth
Gospel with the Synoptics we are at once struck by the differences<a href="#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[28]</span>, but he goes onto say that even when we
look at some of the major similarities we must admit that they alone cannot be
enough to show that John was dependent on the Synoptics and Mark in particular,
even though they point to John having knowledge of a similar tradition to Mark.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Firstly there is no account in either of John or Mark of
Jesus birth and early life. However these admissions appear to be for
differing reasons. Lee feels that Mark left this out because he knew nothing of
them while Johns omission was due to his wanting to emphasis the eternal
character of Jesus<a href="#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[29]</span>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Secondly even though both start at the same point in time
(the ministry of John the Baptist) and place (Galilee). Mark focuses on a non-<span class="SpellE">Judaean</span> ministry while John centers his accounts of Jesus
teaching around the feast of <st1:city><st1:place>Jerusalem</st1:place></st1:city>.
Both in the end bring Jesus to Jerusalem.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thirdly both accounts end at the resurrection with both
treating it in some sense as spiritual.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fourthly John appears to be aware of certain facts from
the <span class="SpellE">Marcan</span> tradition such as the cleansing of the
temple, the home at Bethany, the anointing, the feeding of the multitude, the
walking on the sea and the twofold nature of the trial<a href="#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[30]</span>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is noted by Moody-Smith that if John did not know the Synoptics,
but rather some common or overlapping traditions or sources, one could expect
to find the most extensive agreement in the passion accounts. He then goes on to
state this is exactly what is found<a href="#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[31]</span>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Again in support of the view of Johns independence from
the Synoptics, Gardner-Smith critiques the position held by Professor Sparks
who claims that John had knowledge of Matthew<a href="#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[32]</span>. In this issue Gardner-Smith looks at
the comparison between John 13:16, John 15:20 and Matthew 10:24-25. Professor
Sparks according to Gardner-Smith discusses these passages and their
interrelationship, then concludes that since all three have the same saying and
the same complex of ideas the most natural assumption was that John knew
Matthew<a href="#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[33]</span>. Professor Sparks sets out nine
points,(of which we shall look at three) in his attempt to prove his point.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Firstly that the servant-lord antithesis was for St John
clearly primary and it is precisely this antithesis which is pointed to the
second member of St Matthews two member version; it is however, absent from
Lukes version. Gardner-Smith directs our attention to the fact that this may
point out that John was not dependent on Luke, but provides no reasoning to
believe that he was in the least influenced by Matthew. After all he may have
been using instead another source.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Secondly Professor Sparks insists that St Johns second
antithesis is between an apostle and the one that sent him which he further
claims fits exactly into the context which Matthew places the saying (the
mission of the twelve). Matthew accordingly he claims introduces the twelve
with <span class="SpellE" style="font-family: Greek;">twn</span><span style="font-family: Greek;"> de <span class="SpellE">dwdeka</span> <span class="SpellE">apostolwn</span>
<span class="SpellE">ta</span> <span class="SpellE">onomata</span> <span class="SpellE">estin</span> <span class="SpellE">tauta</span> </span><span>..., </span>the twelve apostles. It is the
word apostle which according to Gardner-Smith, <st1:city><st1:place>Sparks</st1:place></st1:city>
assumes that John uses. However Matthew never uses this word again after
Matthew 10:2 and the passage in John13:16 which Sparks claims to underlie
Matthew 10:26 uses <span class="SpellE" style="font-family: Greek;">maqhthj</span>. Are we to suppose then that John
changed <span class="SpellE" style="font-family: Greek;">maqhthj</span> to <span class="SpellE" style="font-family: Greek;">apostoloj</span><a href="#_ftn34" name="_ftnref34"><span style="font-family: Greek;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="font-family: Greek;">[34]</span>. For Gardner-Smith then all that has happened here is
that John has placed a well known saying into a new setting.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thirdly it is the use again of the word apostle which bears
consideration. In the earliest Church the word apostle was commonly used to
describe a limited class of missionaries, who were not necessarily, members of
the original twelve. Later the word became restricted to the Twelve and it is
significant that Luke only uses it in that way. However neither Matthew or John
have this usage as in Matthew the word may mean nothing more than those who
were sent.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It can be seen then that the issue of dependence or
independence can be supported very well from either side.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However the weight of the evidence at this time leans
towards independence. Especially in the sense that John did not sit down with
any of the Synoptic gospels before him and rewrite or redact these gospels so
as to bring us the Fourth Gospel.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This then opens the door to the view held by Leon Morris
and D.A. Carson. That is, that there is a basis for an interlocking tradition<a href="#_ftn35" name="_ftnref35"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[35]</span>. For Morris and Carson just because
there is little direct evidence of a direct dependence does not mean there
cannot be a connection between what John and the Synoptics enshrine as
tradition. Just as an article by Pierson Parker points out, the relationship
between the Synoptics and John is very complex<a href="#_ftn36" name="_ftnref36"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[36]</span>. Parker states himself that,  the case
is far from convincing, for Johns literary dependence on any of the Synoptics<a href="#_ftn37" name="_ftnref37"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[37]</span>. It is obvious that John rarely agrees
with the Synoptics, but when he does all sorts of things happen<a href="#_ftn38" name="_ftnref38"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[38]</span>. Sometimes for instance John agrees with
Matthew and Mark against Luke, sometimes with Mark or Matthew alone. Carson
sees the Synoptics and John reinforcing each other without displaying literary
dependence and as such represent this interlocking tradition.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In a sense Stephen Smalley agrees with this because with
statements like if there is a connection between<span>&nbsp; </span>the synoptic and <span class="SpellE">Johannine</span>
traditions, these (on the assumption of <span class="SpellE">Johannine</span>
independence) are in the underground. They remind us not of borrowing from one
Gospel to another, but of a common, primitive Christian tradition shared by all
the evangelists; even if at times Johns sources approximate remarkably to
those used by the other Gospel writers<a href="#_ftn39" name="_ftnref39"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[39]</span> it is hard to imagine he is thinking of
anything else.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Even Robinson talks about an interrelation of tradition
and cites an example of Mark 6 and John 6 where Jesus withdraws to the
wilderness, feeds the crowds, journeys across the lake while walking on the
water then delivers a discourse on bread, where each follow one another in
different forms in both traditions<a href="#_ftn40" name="_ftnref40"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[40]</span>. This he claims in not due to their
being put together later by some process but rather because that is the way the
events took place<a href="#_ftn41" name="_ftnref41"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[41]</span>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In conclusion then, this appears to be the best
explanation for the similarities and differences between John and the Synoptics
because after having released ourselves from the constraints of a literary
dependence it is possible to see that if John often usefully explains something
in the Synoptics then the Synoptics frequently provide information that enables
us to make better sense of the Fourth Gospel. This then is the great strength
of this view, that one enables us to better understand and apply the other.
(See Appendix 1).</p>
<p>
<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Brougham;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Appendix 1.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This diagram reproduced form Stephen Smalleys book gives
a good pictorial explanation of this view. JA is Johns own material while J1
is Johns version of material parallel to the Synoptic tradition<a href="#_ftn42" name="_ftnref42"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><!--[endif]--></span></a><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[42]</span>. The rest is self explanatory.</p>
    <p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Brougham;">
<img alt="" id="_x0000_i1026" src="images/john.h1.gif" width="483" height="186" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: solid;" /><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" />
</span></p>
<p><br clear="ALL" />
</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt;">BIBLIOGRAPHY.<o:p>
</o:p>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span lang="EN-US">&nbsp;<o:p>
</o:p>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Barrett C.K., <span style="text-decoration: underline;">The Gospel According
to Saint John,</span> (SPCK: London, 1978).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Beasley-Murray George R., <span style="text-decoration: underline;">John,</span>
(Word; Waco Texas, 1987) Vol 37.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Carson D.A., <span style="text-decoration: underline;">The Gospel According
to John,</span> (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1994).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dodd C.H., <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Historical Tradition in
the Fourth Gospel. </span>(Cambridge University Press; London, 1963).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Gardner-Smith P., St Johns
Knowledge of Matthew&nbsp; <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Journal
of Theological Studies </span>&nbsp;Vol 4
(1953) 31-35.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Gardiner-Smith P., <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Saint John and
the Synoptic Gospels,</span> (Cambridge; 1938).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Glasswell M.E., The Relationship
Between John and Mark&nbsp; <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Journal
for the Study of the New Testament.</span> Vol 23 (1985) 99-115.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Kysar Robert., The Gospel of John
in Current Research <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Religious Studies Review,</span> Vol 9 Number 4 Oct
(1983) 314-320.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Lee E. Kenneth., St Mark and the
Fourth Gospel <span style="text-decoration: underline;">New Testament Studies,</span> Vol 3 (1956-57) 50-58.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Morris Leon., <span style="text-decoration: underline;">The Gospel According
to John,</span> (Eerdmans; Grand Rapids, 1992).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">&nbsp;Morris Leon., <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Studies in the Fourth
Gospel,</span> (The Paternoster Press; Devon, 1969).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Parker Pierson., Luke and the
Fourth Evangelist <span style="text-decoration: underline;">New Testament Studies,</span> Vol 9 (1962-63) 317- 336.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Robinson John A.T., <span style="text-decoration: underline;">The Priority of
John.</span> (SCM Press: London, 1985).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Smalley Stephen., <span style="text-decoration: underline;">John, Evangelist
and Interpreter, </span>( The Paternoster Press; Exeter, 1978).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Smith D. Moody., John and the
Synoptics <span style="text-decoration: underline;">New Testament Studies</span> Vol 26, (1980) 425-444.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Smith D. Moody., B.W. Bacon on John
and Mark, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Perspectives in Religious Studies. </span>&nbsp;Volume 8 Fall (1981) 201-218.</span></p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div class="h2">Footnotes</div>
<div id="ftn1">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[1]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Robert Kysar, The Gospel of John in Current Research <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Religious
Studies Review,</span> Vol 9 Number 4 Oct (1983) 316.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[2]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Kysar, 316.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[3]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Kysar, 316.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[4]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Stephen Smalley, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">John, Evangelist and Interpreter, </span>( The Paternoster
Press; Exeter, 1978) 12.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[5]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
D. Moody Smith, B.W. Bacon on John and Mark, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Perspectives in
Religious Studies. </span>&nbsp;Volume 8
Fall (1981) 201-218. Here Smith looks at the work of Bacon and brings out
Bacons conclusions; (1) Matthew is practically ignored; (2) Mark is made
the basis; (3)&nbsp; Supplements and
changes are made with large use of Luke both as motive and material.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn6">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[6]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
C.K. Barrett, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">The Gospel According to Saint John,</span> (SPCK: London,
1978) 16.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn7">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[7]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
M.E. Glasswell, The Relationship Between John and Mark&nbsp;
<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Journal for the Study of the New Testament.</span> Vol 23 (1985) 99.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn8">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[8]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
D. Moody Smith, John and the Synoptics <span style="text-decoration: underline;">New Testament Studies</span>
Vol 26, (1980) 426.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn9">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[9]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
P. Gardiner-Smith, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels,</span> (Cambridge;
1938)</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn10">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[10]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Leon Morris, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">The Gospel According to John,</span> (Eerdmans; Grand Rapids,
1992) 50.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn11">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[11]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
George R. Beasley-Murray, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">John,</span> (Word; Waco Texas, 1987) Vol 37,
xxxvi.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn12">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[12]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Beasley-Murray, xxxvi.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn13">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[13]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
C.H. Dodd, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. </span>(Cambridge
University Press; London, 1963) 9.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn14">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[14]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Glasswell, 99.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn15">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[15]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
John A.T. Robinson, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">The Priority of John.</span> (SCM Press: London, 1985)
1.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn16">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[16]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Robinson, 3.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn17">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[17]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Dodd, 8.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn18">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[18]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Dodd, 9.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn19">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[19]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
D.A. Carson, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">The Gospel According to John,</span> (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids,
1994) 49.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn20">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[20]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Dodd, 423.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn21">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[21]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Dodd, 9.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn22">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[22]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Carson, 68 ff. For a complete assessment of this argument see Carson.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn23">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[23]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Dodd, 10.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn24">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[24]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
C.K. Barrett, 103f.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn25">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[25]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Dodd, 12.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn26">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[26]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Barrett, 104.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn27">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[27]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Dodd, 12.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn28">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[28]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
E. Kenneth Lee, St Mark and the Fourth Gospel <span style="text-decoration: underline;">New Testament
Studies,</span> Vol 3 (1956-57) 50.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn29">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[29]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Lee, 51f.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn30">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[30]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Lee, 51.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn31">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[31]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Moody-Smith, 433.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn32">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[32]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
P. Gardner-Smith, St Johns Knowledge of Matthew&nbsp;
<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Journal of Theological Studies </span>&nbsp;Vol
4 (1953) 31-35.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn33">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[33]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Gardner-Smith, St Johns Knowledge of Matthew 31.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn34">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref34" name="_ftn34"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[34]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Gardner-Smith, St Johns Knowledge of Matthew 32.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn35">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref35" name="_ftn35"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[35]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Leon Morris, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Studies in the Fourth Gospel,</span> (The Paternoster Press;
Devon, 1969) 40.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn36">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref36" name="_ftn36"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[36]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Pierson Parker, Luke and the Fourth Evangelist <span style="text-decoration: underline;">New Testament
Studies,</span> Vol 9 (1962-63) 317- 336.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn37">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref37" name="_ftn37"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[37]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Pierson Parker,&nbsp; 331.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn38">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref38" name="_ftn38"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[38]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Morris, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Studies in the Fourth Gospel</span>, 41.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn39">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref39" name="_ftn39"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[39]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Stephen Smalley, 39.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn40">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref40" name="_ftn40"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[40]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Robinson,&nbsp; 24.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn41">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref41" name="_ftn41"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[41]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Robinson. 24. In defence of his position he quotes Fortna who sees the
verbal relationships between the two feeding stories in Mark 6 and 8 as
analogous to that between Johns story and any other synoptic version. Yet
according to Fortna no body suggests that Mark 6 is literary dependent on
Mark 8 or visa versa.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn42">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref42" name="_ftn42"><span lang="EN-US" class="MsoFootnoteReference">[42]</span></a><span lang="EN-US">
Smalley, 40.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
